Note that I did say "right sized allocations" and have said multiple times that
it is fine to match allocations with the size of the organization and/or the
size of the organization's current network. I also have stated that we need to
be good technical stewards and I think most folks here agree with that. I do
not think a small organization like ours for example should ever get the
technical equivalent of a /8 or even close to it. I do strongly think that
every organization should be able to get a right sized allocation if they are
going to use it as that grows the Internet - which in case folks forget is
ARIN's mission.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Wilder [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:18 PM
To: Steven Ryerse; David Farmer
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised
In that case, I would like to request a /8 of IPv6 space. That seems right to
me since conservation isn't a concern anymore.
To be clear, IP Address schemes can only be updated so far. As far as I can
tell IPv4 address schemes have never extended beyond the initial 32 bits they
started off with, and IPv6 also will not change from a 128 bit address length.
Granted, CIDR was introduced to IPv4 to extend the timeline for exhaust of IPv4
address resources, but this is exceptional, and not the rule (certainly for the
future).
And the cost you mention is not a negligible one. Think of the amount of time
and energy that has already gone into IPv6 only to approach 2% of global IP
traffic on IPv6. I believe it is in the community's best interest to conserve
the word conservation in some form. As David said, the conservation of IPv6
resources is going to be much different than conservation of IPv4 resources.
By the way, for those not following, there is a push from many member nations
of the ITU and others in the international community to redistribute the
governance of the internet in their interests. Do not be surprised if the
nations gain the ability to allocate IP Address resources to the entities
within their borders. In that world, IPv6 exhaust is only a short matter of
time. If we can at least embed the concept of conservation of IPv6 resources
now in some way, the global community will thank us a generation or two from
now.
mw
On July 12, 2013 at 08:50 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I disagree. Unlike say land which they aren't making more of, address schemes
> can alway be updated like IPv4 to IPv6. When IPv6 runs out we'll switch to
> IPv8 or whatever (albeit at a cost) or something better than IP. Thus we
> don't need to conserve at all - we just need to do right sized allocations so
> we don't have to pay the additional cost to switch sooner than we have to.
> Nothing like ipv4 or ipv6 or asn numbers need to somehow be conserved for a
> rainy day if there are folks that want to use them.
> Bill is right that the word conserve needs to be removed.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Farmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I really don't understand this debate on Conservation. :{
> >
> > There are some that seem to be claim that conservation is irrelevant with
> > IPv4 free pool run-out.
> >
> > I say so what! We still have IPv6 and ASNs to worry about, and while both
> > resource pools are GARGANTUAN by comparison, they are not infinite.
> > Therefore some concept of conservation remains necessary, obviously not the
> > same concept that we have had in IPv4 for the last 20 years or so. But,
> > completely eliminating conservation as a concept, principle, or goal, of
> > how we manage Internet number resources, seems like the proverbial
> > "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
> >
> > Then others are not willing to concede that anything changes with IPv4
> > run-out.
> >
> > I'll can say I really hope something changes, the focus on conservation
> > that became necessary in the late '90s for IPv4, has nearly lead to the
> > abandonment of other principles like the end-to-end model, open
> > availability of resources (anyone building a network should be able to get
> > unique addresses), etc...
> >
> > So how do we move forward? I suggest;
> >
> > 1. Can everyone concede that going forward, conservation is much less
> > important, but that the need for some concept of conservation doesn't
> > completely go away either.
> >
> > 2. Lets focus the conversation on other issues for a while, let this cool
> > down a little, then come back to it after we've cooled down and maybe have
> > resolved some of the other issues.
> >
> > 3. Are there other concepts, principles, or goals that were missing?
> > I suggested earlier that there were additional principles we should
> > be looking at. An candidates has come up in the conversation today
> > that I would like to propose;
> >
> > 0.2 Fair Distribution
> >
> > The principle of Fair Distribution is the precept that the
> > fundamental purpose of Internet number resources management is to
> > distributed unique number resources in a fair and impartial manner
> > to entities building and operating networks, for benefit of all
> > Internet users equally, and thereby facilitating the growth and
> > sustainability of the Internet.
> >
> > I'd make this #2 behind Registration, and I'd suggest Conservation could
> > follow and ties into this principle through the concepts of "fairness" and
> > "sustainability"
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> > ================================================
> > David Farmer Email: [email protected]
> > Office of Information Technology
> > University of Minnesota
> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> > ================================================
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> > ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
